DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Experimenting with Tone Mapping
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 101, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/24/2006 04:21:54 PM · #76
Original is better imo.
Something about when an image has too even of contrast or lighting, it gets too busy in a way due to lact of depth or reality. Darker areas are natural and thus my eyes take that in and accept it, even drawing my eyes there to let the brain ponder what is in the depths. When it's so even, like the tone mapped, gets too unrealistic and busy in a way.

Maybe I have no clue what I am talking about either.
 09/24/2006 06:16:44 PM · #77
The original is believable. The tone mapped version of Bear's and all the other images processed in such a way requires suspension of disbelief. I'm sure that will be great for adverts where that quality is most desirable though. I tend to prefer the believable. If I had the capability offered by tone mapping, I might be tempted to use it as an under-layer and erase to expose small parts of it that took my fancy. But then again, I am Neanderthal with regard to such skills... ;-)
 09/25/2006 04:44:38 AM · #78
In reading what BradP and pineapple said I thought "Hey! Maybe I am not seeing things right?" so I went back and looked again. I still believe the tone mapped shot is both better and more realistic and this is worrying me. (See my challenge scores to know why :-)

Anyhow, sitting here looking out at the dull grey sky I suddenly thought "When I am looking at a tone mapped photo does my brain perceives the tone mapped photo as being closer to what it would perceive if it was there at the scene? What if the original (non toned mapped photo) is more akin to what a photograph would deliver as opposed to what the brain can perceive?"

This may sound a little weird (or a lot weird) but I am beginning to wonder if we see a photographic image as an image of a real scene replicated with all of the limitations of exposure that film and digital posses and therefore baulk when we see an image wherein the dynamic range has been enhanced beyond that of the film/digital boundaries?

In other words: if it don't look like a photo then we, as photographers, start to feel uncomfortable with it.

This may have something to do with the way the brain/eye can scan a real-life scene and automatically compensate for the disparities in light and colour across the scene as a whole whereas with a photo we are constrained to simply scanning a fixed representation of the scene. But here I am rapidly stepping outside my knowledge zone.

Just a thought as it sure as hell explains some of my limitations when viewing photos and my frustrations with the way my camera renders certain very light-dynamic images! :-)

PS I placed myself in the group "photographers" using a little artistic license :-)
 09/26/2006 01:19:08 AM · #79
Interesting discussion. As photographers, we tend to get "conditioned" into accepting the camera's limited tonal range as "reality", and we are sometimes uncomfortable with expanded tonal range. This is something I fight against all the time. I guarantee y'all that the tone mapped version of the red dawn is MUCH more closely approximating what my eye saw at the scene. You all KNOW this if you think about it. The eye, human vision, is a marvelous thing. I assure you when I made that exposure I was seeing detail throughout the range of the image, in the dark areas and the bright areas both. So for me the tone mapped version is MUCH more accurate and MUCH more compelling.

Obsidian, the Contrast-masked version actually takes a little less time, because the HDRI conversion and tone mapping requires a LOT of processing time, but there's less hands-on work in PS afterwards for sure in the HDR version.

R.
 11/10/2006 11:05:53 AM · #80
Finally got round to getting some HDR done...



Hope you guys somewhat like the experimenting :)

PS: Thanks for the topic Bear :D

Message edited by author 2006-11-10 11:06:08.
 11/10/2006 11:09:17 AM · #81
Originally posted by Noel_ZH:
Finally got round to getting some HDR done...



Now that is stunning. Beautiful.

Is it a multi-shot HDR or something else ? Lot of processing or just a beautiful scene ?
 11/10/2006 12:31:55 PM · #82
OK. a quick and stupid newbie question:

is it necessary to take 3 separate exposures using the camera, or does the software create the 3 samples and then reimage?

also, is there a plug-in for PS6 (like NoiseNinja) that will do what you're all saying?

EDIT - To comment on the "philosphy" behind all this, some of these images seem hyper-stylized to me and almsot resemble computer generated renderings (often using a Radiance technique to render light). It's really pushing the edge between what's real and what's CGI. Nice topic.

Message edited by author 2006-11-10 12:36:57.
 11/10/2006 12:37:58 PM · #83
Originally posted by baco99:
OK. a quick and stupid newbie question:

is it necessary to take 3 separate exposures using the camera, or does the software create the 3 samples and then reimage?

also, is there a plug-in for PS6 (like NoiseNinja) that will do what you're all saying?


If you shoot in RAW, you can generate an over and an under in the RAW processor, do an HDR merge of the 3 "exposures", and tone map the merged image. This is the only way true HDR imaging is currently legal in DPC, but it is only legal in advanced editing. You can also generate a 16-bit TIFF image out of RAW and tone map the single image (at least in Photomatix Pro) and this is not true HDR but it's still pretty effective. This process is legal even in basic editing.

There's no such plugin of which I'm aware for PS6. Photomatix Pro is a standalone program, although I think they have a plugin for CS2, I'm not sure.

R.
 11/10/2006 01:01:45 PM · #84
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
I've never been able to get Photoshop to accept multiple conversions of the RAW file for merge to HDR... are you supposed to do it manually and just mask off the places you want the other exposures to show?


good question...... Not sure about masking procedure, that does not sound like part of the workflow, but I also have trouble with cs2 accepting files for hdr. Loads sometimes and sometimes not. Am currently working with Photomatix Basic w/some interesting plugs and have had more success.
 11/10/2006 01:04:21 PM · #85
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
I've never been able to get Photoshop to accept multiple conversions of the RAW file for merge to HDR... are you supposed to do it manually and just mask off the places you want the other exposures to show?


good question...... Not sure about masking procedure, that does not sound like part of the workflow, but I also have trouble with cs2 accepting files for hdr. Loads sometimes and sometimes not. Am currently working with Photomatix Basic w/some interesting plugs and have had more success.


I believe you have to strip the EXIF data from them to make it work. This was mentioned in another thread...

R.
 11/10/2006 01:14:46 PM · #86
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
I've never been able to get Photoshop to accept multiple conversions of the RAW file for merge to HDR... are you supposed to do it manually and just mask off the places you want the other exposures to show?


good question...... Not sure about masking procedure, that does not sound like part of the workflow, but I also have trouble with cs2 accepting files for hdr. Loads sometimes and sometimes not. Am currently working with Photomatix Basic w/some interesting plugs and have had more success.


I believe you have to strip the EXIF data from them to make it work. This was mentioned in another thread...

R.


Just to confirm what Bear said stripping the EXIF definitely works. Easiest way to do that in photoshop is to just cut and paste in a new document and save.
 11/10/2006 01:25:46 PM · #87
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Noel_ZH:
Finally got round to getting some HDR done...



Now that is stunning. Beautiful.

Is it a multi-shot HDR or something else ? Lot of processing or just a beautiful scene ?


Thanks for the kind comment, appreciated!

Upated the image description to reflect some of the questions.
 11/10/2006 02:50:30 PM · #88
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by baco99:
OK. a quick and stupid newbie question:

is it necessary to take 3 separate exposures using the camera, or does the software create the 3 samples and then reimage?

also, is there a plug-in for PS6 (like NoiseNinja) that will do what you're all saying?


If you shoot in RAW, you can generate an over and an under in the RAW processor,


ok, so where's my RAW processor? is it a camera feature or another piece of software?
 11/10/2006 02:56:13 PM · #89
Originally posted by baco99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by baco99:
OK. a quick and stupid newbie question:

is it necessary to take 3 separate exposures using the camera, or does the software create the 3 samples and then reimage?

also, is there a plug-in for PS6 (like NoiseNinja) that will do what you're all saying?


If you shoot in RAW, you can generate an over and an under in the RAW processor,


ok, so where's my RAW processor? is it a camera feature or another piece of software?

If you have PSCS or PSCS2 is opens when you open a RAW file. Othersiwse known as Adobe Camera RAW.
 11/10/2006 06:13:35 PM · #90
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by baco99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by baco99:
OK. a quick and stupid newbie question:

is it necessary to take 3 separate exposures using the camera, or does the software create the 3 samples and then reimage?

also, is there a plug-in for PS6 (like NoiseNinja) that will do what you're all saying?


If you shoot in RAW, you can generate an over and an under in the RAW processor,


ok, so where's my RAW processor? is it a camera feature or another piece of software?

If you have PSCS or PSCS2 is opens when you open a RAW file. Othersiwse known as Adobe Camera RAW.


hmmm. nope. PS6 won't reconize the file so I use the Olympus packaged "Master" software to save to JPG-EXIF. maybe i should look into upgrading to PSCS2???
 11/10/2006 11:40:43 PM · #91
Originally posted by baco99:

hmmm. nope. PS6 won't reconize the file so I use the Olympus packaged "Master" software to save to JPG-EXIF. maybe i should look into upgrading to PSCS2???


I mostly use Canon's EOS Viewer Utility for my RAW processing; save as 16-bit TIFF and open in Photomatix Pro. If you can save as a TIFF file instead of jpg, you are good to go. Even if you can't save as 16-bit TIFF, you can open any file in PS, convert mode to 16-bit, and save as TIFF there. A true 16-bit file has more range, of course, but as far as our 640-pixel images are concerned, the difference isn't really noticeable anyway. But you DO need to create a 16-bit TIFF to use tone mapping.

R.
 11/11/2006 09:42:36 PM · #92
Well Robert I have to thank you for starting this thread and helping me re-look at my images. I had tried the HDR before but really didn't see the advantage, now I guess I'll have to save some money up to really use that awesome Tone mapping option. I played a little with it with various images and really like what can be done. Here below is just my samples I did from a file already converted to jpg. I can't wait to adjust a RAW to each and try that (but Olympus Master sucks at options for RAW conversion so I'll work on one of my other converters)

original that I converted from RAW and thought I liked

I used PSP to adjust the histogram and all I did was move the midtone left or right (equal amounts).

This is image with midtones set at .50
This is image with midtones set at 1.50
and this is the mid range one

I wasn't sure about the straight HDR cause it seemed dark and not too pleasant but then I did the tone mapping I got this (please excuse the watermarking since I'm still trying it out)


I wonder what I can do to keep the sky some what blue but still love this version and am now trying it on older stuff.

Thanks again robert for starting this post and everyone for all the awesome examples and tips.

Message edited by author 2006-11-12 04:51:56.
 11/11/2006 10:53:57 PM · #93
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have been using the free version of PhotomatixPro for a while to generate extended dynamic range images. It's been interesting, but it was limited. I just paid for the registered copy to open up true HDRI imaging, and this includes something called "tone mapping" which I find fascinating. Here's an example of an extremely manipulated HDRI image with aggressive tone mapping. Note that nearly all this manipulation was done in Photomatix to generate the composite; PS was just used to clean it up a little and adjust the colors to be (believe it or not) less aggressive.



I'm aware that this is a flawed image on many levels, but an interesting effect is happening here.

R,


Interesting Bro Bear,

Just don't like what the edges are doing on the landscape bg.

Keep going.
 11/11/2006 11:36:06 PM · #94
I never did get Photoshop to do the HDR thing, but I did get the trial version of that Photomatix thing, and without any idea of what settings are for what, I gave it a shot. The first is the Photoshopped version, using whatever it was I did to get where I got. I took that version, created two new versions - light and dark based on the middle slider in levels - then fed all three into Photomatix. This be what resulted:

PS version:


HDR then tonemapped using the trial version of the software:
11/12/2006 01:00:13 PM · #95
Originally posted by Melethia:
I never did get Photoshop to do the HDR thing, but I did get the trial version of that Photomatix thing, and without any idea of what settings are for what, I gave it a shot. The first is the Photoshopped version, using whatever it was I did to get where I got. I took that version, created two new versions - light and dark based on the middle slider in levels - then fed all three into Photomatix. This be what resulted:

PS version:


HDR then tonemapped using the trial version of the software:


I love the colours that are in the trees in the photomatix shot. Not too sure about the sunlight on the ground (center right), but with practice.

One thing I have noticed since this HDR thing kicked off is that there is no substitute to working with 3 bracketed images as opposed to 3 of the same image `exposed` slightly differently in Rawshooter/DPP/Capture 1 etc..
 11/12/2006 02:31:09 PM · #96
Probably true on the bracketed shot thing. I'm still not quite sure about the colors - I kinda prefer the non-tone-mapped color but it may be a "it's gotta grow on you" kind of thing. But there's no way I was gonna lug a tripod on that trek, that's for sure! :-)
 11/12/2006 02:44:49 PM · #97
not sure if this has been mentioned but i just realized that the new version of photomatix will auto hdr one raw file for you. just go to file/open and opent he raw file and it will do it for you. then you can tone map. i compared my bracketed one and they were pretty close.
 11/12/2006 03:13:44 PM · #98
Originally posted by Melethia:
Probably true on the bracketed shot thing. I'm still not quite sure about the colors - I kinda prefer the non-tone-mapped color but it may be a "it's gotta grow on you" kind of thing. But there's no way I was gonna lug a tripod on that trek, that's for sure! :-)


Try sandwiching the PS version on top of the tone mapped version and changing layer mode to "lighten", to name just one possibility. Experiment. Then fade the top layer in and out with opacity adjustment and look at what happens.

R.
 11/12/2006 03:17:48 PM · #99
Originally posted by marksimms:

One thing I have noticed since this HDR thing kicked off is that there is no substitute to working with 3 bracketed images as opposed to 3 of the same image `exposed` slightly differently in Rawshooter/DPP/Capture 1 etc..


It depends on the image. This is certainly true for images with really extreme tonal range, but for images that need less compression the RAW file conversion plus/minus technique works very well, and of course it's the only one that's legal in the advanced ruleset. And you can do tone mapping straight from a single exposure in basic. So it depends ont he rules you are working with.

The biggest single difference, practically speaking, is in the haloing artifacts: multiple in-camera exposures merged show the least haloing, RAW conversions are in the middle, and straight tone-mapping is very touchy as far as haloing goes. Same goes, incidentally, for "artificial flattening" in broad areas of one tone, like bright skies.

R.
 11/12/2006 05:33:00 PM · #100
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


Try sandwiching the PS version on top of the tone mapped version and changing layer mode to "lighten", to name just one possibility. Experiment. Then fade the top layer in and out with opacity adjustment and look at what happens.

R.


I'll give this a shot. I did take some multiple exposures this morning, but without the marshes and such, it just ain't the same. Texas scrub, no matter how much you doctor it up, is still Texas scrub. :-)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 01:21:36 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 01:21:36 PM EDT.